Appeal 2007-0716
Application 09/946,201
“reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.”) (internal citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires, inter alia, an access
requestor that processes ARI tags and a user profile to determine the user
access level to a webpage. The claim further requires restricting the user’s
access to the webpage based on the user’s determined access level. As
detailed in the findings of fact section above, we have found that Schreiber
teaches a mechanism for allowing authenticated administrators to designate
images as “protected” or “not protected” by attaching HTML tags to the
corresponding images in the webpage code. (Findings of Fact 7 and 8.) We
have also found that Schreiber teaches another mechanism for allowing
authorized clients (with an encryption key) to decrypt encrypted images
received from the server. (Finding of Fact 12.) Similarly, we have found
that Schreiber teaches a mechanism for allowing unauthorized clients to
purchase protected images. (Findings of Fact 13.) Additionally, we have
found that Schreiber teaches that the web browser can process the encrypted
data received from the server to yield substitute data. (Finding of Fact 11.)
We consequently find that Schreiber teaches the claimed user’s access level
as a client being either “authorized” or “unauthorized” to access a protected
image referenced in a webpage. Similarly, we find that Schreiber teaches
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013